Delhi Court Grants Permission to Sanjay Singh for Signing Forms and Documents for Rajya Sabha Renomination
Singh filed an application submitting that his current term as a Rajya Sabha member is expiring on January 27.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has allowed AAP MP Sanjay Singh, arrested in a money laundering case in connection with the alleged excise policy scam, to sign forms and documents for his Rajya Sabha renomination.
Singh filed an application submitting that his current term as a Rajya Sabha member is expiring on January 27.
The application says that the Returning Officer has issued a notice on January 2 for conduct of the election and nominations for the Rajy Sabha are to be submitted by January 9.
On Singh seeking direction to the Tihar Jail Superintendent to allow him to sign the documents, Special Judge M.K. Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court passed the order, saying that the Jail Superintendent must ensure that Singh’s signatures are permitted to be taken on the said documents and he is also permitted to meet his Counsel for half-an-hour to discuss the modalities in connection with filing of the Rajy Sabha nomination.
“It is being directed that if the documents are presented by the counsel for accused before jail authorities on January 6, 2024, the Jail Superintendent must ensure that the signatures of the accused are permitted …,” the judge said.
On Thursday, the AAP MP moved the Delhi High Court, seeking bail in the money laundering case in connection with the alleged excise policy scam.
The move comes after Special Judge M.K. Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Courts, on December 22, dismissed Singh’s bail plea.
On December 21, the trial court had also extended the AAP leader’s judicial custody in the case and had asked the ED to provide a copy of its fifth supplementary charge sheet and related documents to him.
Denying bail to Singh, the judge had said that the evidence demonstrated the accused’s involvement in money laundering and that that there were reasonable grounds to believe in the guilt based on the connection to proceeds of crime from scheduled offences investigated by the CBI.
The court also said that observations on the interpretation of Section 45 and 50 of the PMLA, made during the dismissal of bail applications for various accused, remained unaltered, and that reliance on a Supreme Court order granting bail to another accused in the case didn’t provide contrary observations or establish parity.
It had also dismissed the argument regarding the absence of recovery during proceedings, stating that it is not always necessary.
Addressing the lack of documentary evidence connecting the accused to alleged proceeds of crime, the court rejected the notion, citing the nature of cash transactions.
Dismissing the claim of approver coercion, the judge found no evidence of influence and affirmed the relevance of evidence collected by the ED while noting the accused’s alleged role in influencing the excise policy and attempted creation of a partnership involving a dummy associate to generate proceeds of crime.
Statements of approver Dinesh Arora, accused Amit Arora, and witness Ankit Gupta were cited in relation to this aspect, revealing attempts to incorporate the applicant’s personal assistant into the entity.
Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, representing Singh, had earlier argued that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had not questioned the AAP leader before his arrest and also cited contradictions in the statements of accused-turned-approver Dinesh Arora and other witnesses.
The ED had opposed the bail application, citing the ongoing investigation and expressing concerns that Singh’s release could potentially obstruct the investigation, tamper with evidence, and influence witnesses.
Singh’s counsel had also said that since the supplementary charge sheet against him has already been filed, there was some kind of finality regarding the collection of evidence which should be the basis for granting him bail.
Mathur noted that Singh was neither an accused, and was never arrested, or charge sheeted in the predicate offence (the alleged corruption in the excise scam) being probed by the CBI, and that he was not even summoned by the CBI in the corruption case.
Singh’s name did not appear in any of the supplementary charge sheets filed by the ED before his arrest.
The financial probe agency arrested Singh on October 4 after carrying out searches at his residence in the North Avenue area.
